“Cost-effectiveness of the fish welfare interventions recommended by Ambitious Impact, and Fish Welfare Initiative’s farm program” by Vasco Grilo🔸

The views expressed here are my own, not those of the people who provided feedback on the draft. Summary Ambitious Impact (AIM) implicitly assumed all species have welfare ranges conditional on sentience equal to that of humans until 2024. Consequently, AIM had been overestimating the welfare range of species with lower welfare ranges conditional on sentience, and therefore the cost-effectiveness of helping animals of such species. For example, I believe helping fish was favoured relative to helping chickens, as fish have a lower welfare range conditional on sentience than chickens. Using Rethink Priorities’ (RP's) median welfare ranges instead of AIM's past assumption described above, the 3 fish welfare interventions AIM has recommended have a significantly lower cost-effectiveness than that of cage-free campaigns at the time of recommendation. I conclude influencing European Union fish welfare policy through strategic work in Greece advocating for electrical stunning before slaughter is 12.3 % as cost-effective as cage-free campaigns. [...] ---Outline:(00:16) Summary(05:14) Fish welfare interventions recommended by Ambitious Impact(05:20) Context(06:07) Calculations(09:50) Discussion(09:54) Influencing European Union fish welfare policy through strategic work in Greece advocating for electrical stunning before slaughter(14:25) East Asian fish welfare(14:52) Improving water quality on fish farms(15:34) Fish Welfare Initiative's farm program(15:39) Context(16:27) Calculations(19:40) Discussion(29:36) AcknowledgementsThe original text contained 10 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: January 24th, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yoDTsrR95YRnBW6fk/cost-effectiveness-of-the-fish-welfare-interventions --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.